In response: Genetically modified crops

Broad consensus says they are safe

In the op-ed “Science study scandal affects world health” (Jan. 9), Salk professor David Schubert has chosen to utilize facts selectively, and in this instance drawing from a completely unrelated area, in his futile campaign to discredit the long record of safety of genetically modified crops.

All the while, he fails to recognize the contribution that modern agricultural research has made to reducing environmental impact while positively influencing world food supplies through the development of insect-resistant and herbicide tolerant corn, soybeans, rapeseed, sugarbeets and cotton and disease-resistant papaya, which virtually saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from ruin a few years ago.

There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. In the 20 years since I co-led efforts in obtaining the first approvals from the federal government for insect-resistant corn there has not been one shred of credible scientific evidence to back Schubert’s claim that “there is significant evidence ... that some GM foods are hazardous to human health.”

Thirty five years ago as a candidate for my master of public health degree at the University of Pittsburgh, I wrote my thesis on the lack of scientific evidence to support claims by anti-fluoridation activists that fluoride in drinking water would cause cancer. This was some 25 years after studies demonstrated the benefits of fluoridation in reducing dental caries. The anti-fluoridation activists persist in making such claims today, while no such scientific evidence exists. I place Schubert in the same camp: the benefits of genetic modification of crops have proved to be substantial while no risks have been demonstrated other than in studies that have been discredited, as is the case with the Giles-Eric Seralini manuscript he discusses.

Scientists have always been subject to peer review of their work; I disagree with professor Schubert that we should preserve the rights of scientists to publish results based on faulty study design.